I think that anyone with any working knowledge of the political process can agree, based upon absolutely no evidence (which is the Conspiracy Standard around here) that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party fixed Tuesday's primary.

Polls had Obama with a double digit lead. Exit polls had him with a decisive lead. He lead in nearly all catagories of voter.

Add to that the unprecedented high turnout (again favoring Obama) and the fact that many areas simply ran out of ballots and the large influx of New Yorkers at Hillary campaign events.

Simply put, Hillary won by about 8,000 voters. That means that more then 20,000 voters changed their minds in the last 24 hours of the race. Such a change is unprecedented. Either the polls were wrong (on a massive scale that could only amount to fraud) or something else happened. I note for the record that the polls were generally accurate for the Republican result.

Its not unusual for some polls to be off. But in this case all the polls, including internal Clinton campaign tracking polls, were off by a factor of 15-25%.

I agree. Simply we've been voting since 1776. Running out of ballots is a trick. In Albequerque they did that at all the republican areas in the city in the last election.The city is controled by Dems. In Iowa all the rental cars Hillary had acquired. Republicans in Michigan had their tires slashed in the last election during campaigning. But this seems suspicious in the last minute surge for Clinton.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

Quote:Originally posted by Hero:
Add to that the unprecedented high turnout (again favoring Obama) and the fact that many areas simply ran out of ballots and the large influx of New Yorkers at Hillary campaign events.

Turns out a lot of New Yorkers (and other Hillary supporters) could have been visiting New Hampshire that day...and could have voted.

A lot of Obama supporters are young people and the young are notorious for saying that they are going to vote, but when election day comes around they find something better to do. In this case they probably heard that Obama was leading by double digits and decided their vote wasn't essential. I'm not sure how much of the vote this could account for but it could be one factor.

That law is weirdly written. You can register to vote at the poll, and independents can choose which primary to vote in but if you're registered with a party, you can't change your affiliation and vote in the other primary on election day. That explains the large number of independents in NH. Just folks keeping their options open.

Actually there's already evidence floating around, but I will refrain from comment while the crew processes it - I know Bev and Jim have a metric ton of it too, but plowing through this much crap takes time, and it's out of my field of expertise so I can't even help em out.

That kinda swing is a red flag, however, but we're still backed up with the Iowa stuff, such as we can get, and fighting for the rest of the stuff that was SUPPOSED to be released that day, and wasn't.

And for the record, I spit upon the asinine idea of folks in two faraway states being able to decide FOR me what candidate should be on the ballot by the time it gets to me, it mocks the entire process and ideal of a democratic election.

"Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints toward monarchy; and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American?"

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And for the record, I spit upon the asinine idea of folks in two faraway states being able to decide FOR me what candidate should be on the ballot by the time it gets to me,
-Frem

I believe Kansas hero John Brown would know what to do in a case like this.

Quote:Originally posted by rue:
The real conspiracy is that republicans came out and voted for Clinton b/c they think she'll be easier to pick off in the national election.

But Rue, they're all TERRIFIED of Hilary getting the nomination! They're all convinced that it's gonna be a Clinton/Obama ticket and that they will get their collective butt kicked--it's hilarious!

HKCavalier
.

I very much doubt there will be a Clinton/Obama ticket since neither delivers something that the other doesn't already have. Both come from northern states, both will alienate a small but potentially significant part of the electorate. ONE of them teamed with a southerner like Edwards could probably manage to overcome their disadvantages. A Clinton/Obama ticket would scare off those voters that don't like Hillary AND those that won't vote for a black VP. If the election is expected to be close the Democratic leadership is unlikely to want to risk another 8 years of a Republican presidency by going that far. I think Edwards knows this and knew it going in. He is campaigning to be 3rd in the hopes that he can cut a deal to be VP.

As for the Reps they want a Clinton to be running. There is enough dirt left over from Bill's years they still have to throw around, they can cast doubt on her qualifications to be a female commander in chief while at the same time pointing out that she's a hawk --- and perhaps encourage a protest antiwar vote if someone like Nader runs as an antiwar independent. The toolkit overflows when it comes to Clinton. Things get more tricky when targeting Obama since anything that could be construed as a racial slur would have considerable blowback.

The best Democratic combo is Obama/Edwards with Edwards doing the majority of the campaigning in the south.

As to the core of Hero's argument it could be possible. The fact that so many states now have earlier primaries mean that things may work differently than in the past. Before you could win in an early state and then self destruct before things went much further. With the new earlier voting if you come out of the first 2 primaries clearly ahead you could carry that momentum forward and end your opponents chances before they get chance to push back. Hillary could not afford to come out of this 2 states behind, she needed one win if she wanted to stay in the game.

I woulda thought the conservative media would see things as you do, but in the past few months what I've caught of Gingrich and Hannity and Beck, et al. has been this expectation of a Clinton/Obama win. It's because of the points you make here that their fear of "the inevitable" has been so weirdly comical (granted, this was all well before these primaries).

However, one thing that gives their terror just a little credibility is the largely unreported reality I see in this election cycle: the Republicans got no game this time out. If we didn't have the two party hype machine that we do, every last one of the Republican candidates would be an also-ran, a foot-note. None of these guys would be front tier. Every last one of them has HUGE Achilles heals with the electorate.

Meanwhile, the Dems have had several viable candidates. Even Hilary, who's been so attacked and maligned for years and years, has been doing quite well in polls. I know polls are nothing much but when every one of the "if the election were held today" polls that I've seen give the win to a Democrat, and by a clear margin, well, it doesn't give the impression that Clinton or Obama would have much to worry about from a Republican this year.

We shall see...

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Quote:Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
No historian here, but didn't John Brown & his men raid a Federal armory in Harpers Ferry, Va ( now W.Va.), kill US Federal Troops, & was tried and hung for insurrection?

Yeah.

The attack was put down by US Marines from Washington City led by one Col. Robert E. Lee. Brown was eventually exectuted by public hanging in Virginia (with security by the Cadet Corps from the Virginia Military Institute).

Brown was considered a hero and martyr by abolishonists in the north despite his long record of terrorist activities in Kansas. In fact he was a big part of the whole 'Bleeding Kansas' crisis. He led the attack on Lawrence, Kansas in 1857 that sacked and burned the town (Pottawatomie Massacre).

The song I cited became a Union marching song during the Civil War. I note for the record that were I ever given the choice, I'd prefer to be hung from a sour apple tree then just a regular one...so perhaps they were doing Jefferson Davis a mild complement.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:I very much doubt there will be a Clinton/Obama ticket since neither delivers something that the other doesn't already have. Both come from northern states, both will alienate a small but potentially significant part of the electorate.

Okay, since we're on the subject of unfounded conspiracy theories, I'll throw this out there...(and please just take it in the humorous manner in which it's intended)

The ONE thing that Obama can deliver to Clinton, and vice-versa, is security. Having one of them choose the other as running mate makes the one in the lead basically "assassination-proof". Think about it: those who couldn't possibly accept a woman president wouldn't be any too happy with a black president, either - and the same holds true whichever one is running for President - the other one keeps them safe.

It's the same thing Bushie the First did when he chose Dan Quayle as his running mate. The thought process goes like this: "You wanna take a shot at me? You want to end up with THIS schmuck running things?! Are you SURE?!"

Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko:
The ONE thing that Obama can deliver to Clinton, and vice-versa, is security. Having one of them choose the other as running mate makes the one in the lead basically "assassination-proof". Think about it: those who couldn't possibly accept a woman president wouldn't be any too happy with a black president, either - and the same holds true whichever one is running for President - the other one keeps them safe.

Thats absolutely insane. Good job. And with Pelosi sitting there...nobody's going to try a two-fer.

Quote:Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
No historian here, but didn't John Brown & his men raid a Federal armory in Harpers Ferry, Va ( now W.Va.), kill US Federal Troops, & was tried and hung for insurrection?

Yeah.

The attack was put down by US Marines from Washington City led by one Col. Robert E. Lee. Brown was eventually exectuted by public hanging in Virginia (with security by the Cadet Corps from the Virginia Military Institute).

Brown was considered a hero and martyr by abolishonists in the north despite his long record of terrorist activities in Kansas. In fact he was a big part of the whole 'Bleeding Kansas' crisis. He led the attack on Lawrence, Kansas in 1857 that sacked and burned the town (Pottawatomie Massacre).

The song I cited became a Union marching song during the Civil War. I note for the record that were I ever given the choice, I'd prefer to be hung from a sour apple tree then just a regular one...so perhaps they were doing Jefferson Davis a mild complement.H

Thanks Hero...That's very interesting, and quite ironic when you think about it:
One man killed for the cause of ending slavery, then was captured by the man who would fight a war to keep slavery.

However, one thing that gives their terror just a little credibility is the largely unreported reality I see in this election cycle: the Republicans got no game this time out. If we didn't have the two party hype machine that we do, every last one of the Republican candidates would be an also-ran, a foot-note. None of these guys would be front tier. Every last one of them has HUGE Achilles heals with the electorate.

It's a credible analysis in fact almost the reverse of the situation in 2004 when everybody but Kerry could see that he was a no-hoper. I contend that the Dems were not really serious about winning in 2004 because that would have left them in charge of the war and probably not in control of congress. They needed another 4 years to let Bush's unpopularity grow and affect congressional Republicans. If Kerry had won then they would have been hoping mad because it would have locked DLC "heir apparent" out of the Whitehouse for at least another 8 years. In fact that was what the whole Wesley Clark thing was about, when Howard Dean started to look like he was making inroads the DLC needed someone to try and steal some of his thunder. Once Dean self destructed, Clark faded back into the woodwork.

The difference in this race is that the Reps want to keep the Whitehouse, not least because the Dems have a chance of a clean sweep this time and could roll back everything won by the Gingrich revolution of 93.

So my expectation is that the Reps will field a balanced ticket, one person from the left and one from the right of their party and they will promise social conservatives that it will be business as usual even as their Presidential candidate trys to appeal to the middle class swing vote.

I would also not pay too much attention to the talking heads. The expectation is that the eventual winner of the primary will have to go further into the center than any Republican since Reagan if they are to grab a big enough share of the swing vote to win. The risk with doing that has always been alienating the religious right and the social conservatives. If these people decide to stay home the game is over and they might just do that if they see things as going against their interest. The easiest way to keep them in line at the polls is to make sure they know just how bad things could get for their position if they don't support the GOP as usual. There are who parts to the art of propaganda, one is to degrade your opponent and dehumanise them. The other is to build him up to being a threat so grave that folks have to do "the right thing" or face disaster. Bin Laden was apparently not nearly as bright or as charismatic as US propaganda paints him out to be, but if you need a big enemy you have to talk him up. Clinton/Obama must sound to the religious right like the end of the world (and I don't mean in that nice rapture kind of a way....) I can think of fewer things more likely to get them to close their eyes and vote for a more liberal Republican than that.

Quote:Originally posted by Fletch2:
I contend that the Dems were not really serious about winning in 2004 because that would have left them in charge of the war and probably not in control of congress. They needed another 4 years to let Bush's unpopularity grow and affect congressional Republicans.

Your right. But for 9/11 I believe that Hillary would have challenged bush in 2004. It seems the last two years of the Clinton Administration was about setting up its Republican successor for failure. The oil spike started in 1999, so did the energy crisis. On January 20, 2001 we were teetering on the brink of international crisis, and economic recession. The political turmoil from the 2000 election was also in play. In 2004 Hillary would have offered to ride in on her white horse and restore the Clinton prosperity.

That explains the Clinton's constant upstaging of AlGORE and their failure to substantially support him with money or political presence.

After 9/11 I think Hillary decided not to run becuse Bush had soaring popularity up through the end of 2003 (when the war scandals started taking serious tolls). He was almost unbeatable, especially given the American preferance to retain wartime Presidents.

However 2008 belongs to her. She and her husband own the Democratic Party, this decision was made years ago. Whether Obama can win in the face of that truth is a far more difficult proposition for him then winning the general election.

Quote:Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Thanks Hero...That's very interesting, and quite ironic when you think about it:
One man killed for the cause of ending slavery, then was captured by the man who would fight a war to keep slavery.

Whats most amazing is that the he was able to fight both for and against the Union in two wars and a career of service without changing his moral values. He saw service to his state to be service to his country until those two came into conflict, then service to his state became something else entirely.

He was also against slavery. Riddle that one around. Stonewall Jackson was also against slavery (almost a radical abolishionist).

Quote:Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Thanks Hero...That's very interesting, and quite ironic when you think about it:
One man killed for the cause of ending slavery, then was captured by the man who would fight a war to keep slavery.

Whats most amazing is that the he was able to fight both for and against the Union in two wars and a career of service without changing his moral values. He saw service to his state to be service to his country until those two came into conflict, then service to his state became something else entirely.

He was also against slavery. Riddle that one around. Stonewall Jackson was also against slavery (almost a radical abolishionist).

H

Actually I don't think it's that big a riddle. History has accepted the victor's version of waht the war was about --- slavery. I think most on the Confederate side saw it as a state's rights issue. You could be against slavery and still think that your State's rights needed defending against an over reaching Federal government.

Quote:Originally posted by Fletch2:
I contend that the Dems were not really serious about winning in 2004 because that would have left them in charge of the war and probably not in control of congress. They needed another 4 years to let Bush's unpopularity grow and affect congressional Republicans.

Your right. But for 9/11 I believe that Hillary would have challenged bush in 2004.

.....

After 9/11 I think Hillary decided not to run becuse Bush had soaring popularity up through the end of 2003 (when the war scandals started taking serious tolls). He was almost unbeatable, especially given the American preferance to retain wartime Presidents.

However 2008 belongs to her. She and her husband own the Democratic Party, this decision was made years ago. Whether Obama can win in the face of that truth is a far more difficult proposition for him then winning the general election.

I think she believes it belongs to her. Like I said 2004 was about fielding a canidate and not losing ground. It could be that Kerry really thought he had a shot, or it could be that he knew from the get go that it was a symbolic jesture. In any case when someone entered the race that might have upset the apple cart --- Howard Dean -- the DLC had to inject their own canidate into the debate to derail him, hence the often bizarre Wesley Clark campaign.

However my analysis with HKCavilier is still my firm belief --- a Clinton/Obama ticket is not on the cards, it's usefull for Reps to use to scare the disaffected and fringe elements in their party back into line but it's the weakest configuration the Dems could field.

He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord,
He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord,
He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord,
His soul is marching on!

John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back,
John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back,
John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back,
His soul is marching on!

His pet lambs will meet him on the way,
His pet lambs will meet him on the way,
His pet lambs will meet him on the way,
They go marching on!

They will hang Jeff Davis to a sour apple tree,
They will hang Jeff Davis to a sour apple tree,
They will hang Jeff Davis to a sour apple tree,
As they march along!

Now, three rousing cheers for the Union,
Now, three rousing cheers for the Union,
Now, three rousing cheers for the Union,
As we are marching on!

H

No historian here, but didn't John Brown & his men raid a Federal armory in Harpers Ferry, Va ( now W.Va.), kill US Federal Troops, & was tried and hung for insurrection?

There's a lot of disagreement as to whether John Brown was a "great man" or the "father of American terrorism". One thing is for sure, he had more to do with ending slavery in the US than any other single American. He wasn't necessarily a good man but he was effective.

The reason I referenced him in this thread is because of his actions after the Kansas election of 1855. That year thousands of pro-slavery Missourians came over the border into Kansas to vote in the election to determine if Kansas would be a free or slave State. After they stole the election they set up an illegal government and immediately legalized slavery in Kansas. As a response, Kansas "Free-Soilers" set up their own government and constitution. Hero's version of the events that followed is incorrect. The town of Lawrence was actually sacked by a pro-slavery posse sent to arrest the "Free-Soilers". In response to the attack on Lawrence, John Brown murdered five pro-slavery settlers, some of which he hacked to death with a sword.

Do the results John Brown achieved justify the means? I believe that slavery was such a great evil that it took a man like Brown to wake up the nation.

Quote:Originally posted by Fletch2:
Actually I don't think it's that big a riddle. History has accepted the victor's version of waht the war was about --- slavery. I think most on the Confederate side saw it as a state's rights issue. You could be against slavery and still think that your State's rights needed defending against an over reaching Federal government.

Exactly, yet if the victors write the history, it is truly amazing the kindness that history and the victors displayed to General Lee. Few American commanders are held in as high esteem.

I'm not massively knowledgable of American history or feelings at the time but to some degree reconciliation was nescessary if the war was to be closed. My limited understanding of Reconstruction is that it was painfull and devisive. My guess is that had the Union actively demonised ordinary Southerners that fought for the Confederacy they stood the risk that southern resentment could boil over into "aftershock" insurrections and rebellions.

What better way to show that a new page had been turned than to glorify the defeated enemy commander? Especially if he had no overt link with the failed regime? By doing so you gain credibilty with all those that saw Lee as a hero and by glorifying the commander, you also show respect to his troops, perhaps making a few of them less ready to take up arms again?

He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord,
He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord,
He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord,
His soul is marching on!

John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back,
John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back,
John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back,
His soul is marching on!

His pet lambs will meet him on the way,
His pet lambs will meet him on the way,
His pet lambs will meet him on the way,
They go marching on!

They will hang Jeff Davis to a sour apple tree,
They will hang Jeff Davis to a sour apple tree,
They will hang Jeff Davis to a sour apple tree,
As they march along!

Now, three rousing cheers for the Union,
Now, three rousing cheers for the Union,
Now, three rousing cheers for the Union,
As we are marching on!

H

No historian here, but didn't John Brown & his men raid a Federal armory in Harpers Ferry, Va ( now W.Va.), kill US Federal Troops, & was tried and hung for insurrection?

There's a lot of disagreement as to whether John Brown was a "great man" or the "father of American terrorism". One thing is for sure, he had more to do with ending slavery in the US than any other single American. He wasn't necessarily a good man but he was effective.

The reason I referenced him in this thread is because of his actions after the Kansas election of 1855. That year thousands of pro-slavery Missourians came over the border into Kansas to vote in the election to determine if Kansas would be a free or slave State. After they stole the election they set up an illegal government and immediately legalized slavery in Kansas. As a response, Kansas "Free-Soilers" set up their own government and constitution. Hero's version of the events that followed is incorrect. The town of Lawrence was actually sacked by a pro-slavery posse sent to arrest the "Free-Soilers". In response to the attack on Lawrence, John Brown murdered five pro-slavery settlers, some of which he hacked to death with a sword.

Do the results John Brown achieved justify the means? I believe that slavery was such a great evil that it took a man like Brown to wake up the nation.

Quote:Originally posted by Fletch2:
Actually I don't think it's that big a riddle. History has accepted the victor's version of waht the war was about --- slavery. I think most on the Confederate side saw it as a state's rights issue. You could be against slavery and still think that your State's rights needed defending against an over reaching Federal government.

Exactly, yet if the victors write the history, it is truly amazing the kindness that history and the victors displayed to General Lee. Few American commanders are held in as high esteem.

H

Hello,

I think if we had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, history would record 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' as the pivotal cause and rallying cry of the Iraq war.

Little kids might someday say, "The Iraq war was about keeping WMD out of terrorist's hands."

We didn't find any WMD, so our history won't record that as the reason for the Iraqi war.

I suppose our history will instead record that the US invaded Iraq due to their failure to comply with UN security resolutions. Or perhaps it will be easier to say that the invasion of Iraq was part of the continuing US War On Terror (TM).

History probably won't show that the Iraq War was a war about money or about oil. Things like that don't look good in a Middle School textbook.

It's easy to rally the people on the platform of SLAVERY. Just like it was easy to rally people on the premise of a rogue dictator itching to sell WMD to any terrorist.

You'll probably never find a Middle School textbook that says the Civil War was fought to preserve the power and dominion of the Union over the States. That's not sexy or romantic.

But fighting Slavery? That's a good fight. Sign me up.

As an aside, when the enemy has a terrific military leader, you can't ignore the multiple brilliant victories he wins. It makes more sense to talk up his capabilities and prowess. Since you eventually beat this person, it only makes you seem even cooler. I mean, if the history texts said, "General Lee was a pansy" then you'd be hard pressed to explain his truckload of victories during the first half of the war.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

The $60,000 recount in NH is now a done deal, with total news blackout by the national media mafia, which refused to attend the press conference with the NH Secretary of State yesterday. The recount is spun to only include Demorat loser Kucinch, with no mention of Ron Paul's Granny Warriors who are paying for the recount. Serious candidates like Ron Paul cannot be seen to question election results, for tactical reasons, so it was clever to have Albert Howard be a Republican presidential candidate, to give him legal standing to demand a recount.

Hero the professional NeoCon is now under orders from the global shadow government to promote Jew Bill Clinton-Blythe (Rockefeller bastard) back into the White House, which is Rupert Murdoch's mission at Fox.

Prediction: The Clinton spawn will interbreed with the Bush spawn, and USASPPNA will have Clinton-Bushes and Bush-Clintons in the hereditary White House, or Brown House (perhaps relocated to their home town of Mexico City), for the next 100 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendi_DengHanoi Hannity: "I voted for the Sino-American Alliance."
"US ports owned by Commie China is good for me."
"Dead and disabled US soldiers are good for me."
"Outsourcing your job is very good for me."
"Sir Rupert dines with Hillary every week."
"Ron Paul does not exist in my 'Verse."

"As far as Chinese goes, I resented it."
-Adam Tudyk, The Making of Firefly

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Barrack Obama.......

A black Muslim with almost zero experience...Yep, that's who I want for President!

Which part is it you have the problem with? The fact that he's black, or the "fact" (which, by the way, isn't true) that he's a Muslim?

Or is it the "zero experience" part? Tell me, how do you think Reagan did as President? Keep in mind that he had ZERO (not "almost zero", but ACTUALLY zero!) national-level experience.

While I have my misgivings about Obama's qualifications or abilities to run this country, let's not just go around parroting that stupid, fallacious e-mail that's making the rounds. For one, it claims that he's a radical Muslim - simply because his father, whom he barely knew, was a Muslim. So by that reckoning, if your father was a racist, then that makes you...

A black Muslim with almost zero experience...Yep, that's who I want for President!

Which part is it you have the problem with? The fact that he's black, or the "fact" (which, by the way, isn't true) that he's a Muslim?

Or is it the "zero experience" part? Tell me, how do you think Reagan did as President? Keep in mind that he had ZERO (not "almost zero", but ACTUALLY zero!) national-level experience.

While I have my misgivings about Obama's qualifications or abilities to run this country, let's not just go around parroting that stupid, fallacious e-mail that's making the rounds. For one, it claims that he's a radical Muslim - simply because his father, whom he barely knew, was a Muslim. So by that reckoning, if your father was a racist, then that makes you...

Oh. Never mind. Mike
sweeping generalizations are wrong.

Reagan had been a Governor & like other Governors, Clinton, Carter, (jeesh, must be beter examples) that prepares you to run a large operation, and have hundreds of people awating your orders....executive experience over a wide spectrum of issues, including balancing a budget. Obama has a few years in the Senate & little or no legislation authored. He WILL NOT put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem, and that bothers me. Yeah, he's hip, he's cool...but he's no patriot, and I do not believe he is remotely capable of leading & defending America during these dangerous times. Was he schooled in an Islamic Madrassa? I really don't know. Was he sworn in on a Koran when he became Senator? Not sure either. I do know enough about him and his beliefs to want to vote for just about anybody else, on either side.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:I do know enough about him and his beliefs...

That's just it, though - you DON'T know enough about him and his beliefs; you only "know" what you've been told by others trying to push their own agendas.

The e-mail you keep going back to about him refusing to take the Pledge of Allegiance, put his hand over his heart, and being sworn in on the Koran is utter and complete bullshit. It doesn't even have the right target! The guy who was sworn in on the Koran was Michigan Congressman Keith Ellison, who was indeed sworn in by placing his hand on a copy of the Koran - the same copy of the Koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson!!

What you "know" about Obama is akin to me saying I "know" that Mitt Romney is a polygamist baby-raper (he must be - he's a Mormon!), Rudy Guiliani is a card-carrying Al Qaeda terrorist cell leader (his firm represents and takes money from those who hid Bin Laden), Mike Huckabee is a pedophile (he must be - he's a Baptist minister!), John McCain is a Commie sleeper agent (he must be - I saw The Manchurian Candidate, and he was a POW!), and Fred Thompson is a liberal Hollywood lefty (he must be - he's a TV and movie star, and we all know how *they* are...).

Here's more info on that e-mail, courtesy of The Congressional Quarterly:

Quote:Obama used a Koran? No, he didn't
By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Thursday, December 20th, 2007 at 01:23 p.m.

SUMMARY: An anonymous e-mail claims Barack Obama is a Muslim, attended a madrassa as a boy and took the oath of office on a Koran. The Truth-O-Meter says wrong, wrong and wrong.

In December 2007, the Hillary Clinton campaign asked for the resignations of volunteers who forwarded a chain e-mail falsely saying that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim. Those firings are just the latest reverberations from a relentless e-mail that has piled up in in-boxes for at least a year.

The e-mail makes a number of specious claims to promote its Manchurian Candidate-style conspiracy theory. It says Obama was raised Muslim and that as a boy he attended a radical Wahabi school in Indonesia. The most recent twist on the e-mail falsely alleges that Obama took his oath of office for the U.S. Senate by swearing on a Koran, the Islamic holy book. The facts, though, are that Obama is a Christian and took the oath of office on a Bible.

Like many Internet smears, it's difficult to tell who’s behind the e-mail and when it got started. The earliest mention we found was on Snopes.com, a Web site devoted to investigating urban legends and other Internet oddities. Snopes checked out the e-mail it received in 2006 and found it false.

Also like many Internet smears, the e-mail starts with a bit of truth before wildly lurching into fantasy. It’s true that Obama’s father was from Africa, and Obama has said his father was born a Muslim. Obama's stepfather was from Indonesia, raised a Muslim. But there’s no evidence that either man was particularly religious as an adult — Obama's father is sometimes described as an atheist, while his stepfather drank alcohol, forbidden in Islam. Obama's American mother, Ann Dunham, rejected organized religion, according to several accounts. Obama has summed up his own faith history by saying he didn't grow up in any particular religious tradition. (Obama's mother, father and stepfather are all deceased.)

The chain e-mail spread from in-boxes to the mainstream press in January 2007, when the conservative magazine Insight published a story saying unnamed sources in the Clinton campaign had discovered that Obama attended a madrassa in Indonesia for four years. Clinton campaign officials denied the story. From Insight, the story was picked up by Fox News, the New York Post and the Glenn Beck program on CNN Headline News.

The Insight story, still available on the Web, never makes clear that the rumors aren't true. An editorial in Insight recently defended the article: “The focus in our story in January 2007 was Hillary’s campaign strategy, not Obama. We were right in our January report about Hillary’s activities, the facts continue to prove us right that Hillary will do all she can to sabotage Obama, and we will ultimately be fully vindicated. Once again, the liberal media will have egg on its face.”

CNN, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune investigated the facts behind the e-mail's madrassa claim, sending reporters to Indonesia to interview former teachers and students. (“Madrassa” is an Arabic word meaning "school,” but Americans generally understand the word to mean a school where anti-Western Islamic ideology is taught.) These investigations found a public school where students wore Western clothing and prayer was a small part of the curriculum. The Chicago Tribune reported the school was “so progressive that teachers wore miniskirts and all students were encouraged to celebrate Christmas.”

Another allegation that appears to have been tacked on to the madrassa e-mail at a later date is the notion that Obama took the oath of office using a Koran. That’s false. Obama became a Christian as an adult, after working as a community organizer with African-American churches in Chicago, a process he recounts in his memoir Dreams from My Father. He is currently a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. When he took the oath of office for the Senate in January 2005, he used his own personal Bible, according to the Obama campaign and press reports from the time.

Because the chain e-mail is clearly intended to defame Obama (asking "Would you want this man leading our country?") and because it gets so many salient points wrong, we award it our Pants on Fire ruling.

That's just it, though - you DON'T know enough about him and his beliefs; you only "know" what you've been told by others trying to push their own agendas.

The e-mail you keep going back to about him refusing to take the Pledge of Allegiance, put his hand over his heart, and being sworn in on the Koran is utter and complete bullshit. It doesn't even have the right target! The guy who was sworn in on the Koran was Michigan Congressman Keith Ellison, who was indeed sworn in by placing his hand on a copy of the Koran - the same copy of the Koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson!!

What you "know" about Obama is akin to me saying I "know" that Mitt Romney is a polygamist baby-raper (he must be - he's a Mormon!), Rudy Guiliani is a card-carrying Al Qaeda terrorist cell leader (his firm represents and takes money from those who hid Bin Laden), Mike Huckabee is a pedophile (he must be - he's a Baptist minister!), John McCain is a Commie sleeper agent (he must be - I saw The Manchurian Candidate, and he was a POW!), and Fred Thompson is a liberal Hollywood lefty (he must be - he's a TV and movie star, and we all know how *they* are...).

Here's more info on that e-mail, courtesy of The Congressional Quarterly:

Quote:Obama used a Koran? No, he didn't
By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Thursday, December 20th, 2007 at 01:23 p.m.

SUMMARY: An anonymous e-mail claims Barack Obama is a Muslim, attended a madrassa as a boy and took the oath of office on a Koran. The Truth-O-Meter says wrong, wrong and wrong.

In December 2007, the Hillary Clinton campaign asked for the resignations of volunteers who forwarded a chain e-mail falsely saying that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim. Those firings are just the latest reverberations from a relentless e-mail that has piled up in in-boxes for at least a year.

The e-mail makes a number of specious claims to promote its Manchurian Candidate-style conspiracy theory. It says Obama was raised Muslim and that as a boy he attended a radical Wahabi school in Indonesia. The most recent twist on the e-mail falsely alleges that Obama took his oath of office for the U.S. Senate by swearing on a Koran, the Islamic holy book. The facts, though, are that Obama is a Christian and took the oath of office on a Bible.

Like many Internet smears, it's difficult to tell who’s behind the e-mail and when it got started. The earliest mention we found was on Snopes.com, a Web site devoted to investigating urban legends and other Internet oddities. Snopes checked out the e-mail it received in 2006 and found it false.

Also like many Internet smears, the e-mail starts with a bit of truth before wildly lurching into fantasy. It’s true that Obama’s father was from Africa, and Obama has said his father was born a Muslim. Obama's stepfather was from Indonesia, raised a Muslim. But there’s no evidence that either man was particularly religious as an adult — Obama's father is sometimes described as an atheist, while his stepfather drank alcohol, forbidden in Islam. Obama's American mother, Ann Dunham, rejected organized religion, according to several accounts. Obama has summed up his own faith history by saying he didn't grow up in any particular religious tradition. (Obama's mother, father and stepfather are all deceased.)

The chain e-mail spread from in-boxes to the mainstream press in January 2007, when the conservative magazine Insight published a story saying unnamed sources in the Clinton campaign had discovered that Obama attended a madrassa in Indonesia for four years. Clinton campaign officials denied the story. From Insight, the story was picked up by Fox News, the New York Post and the Glenn Beck program on CNN Headline News.

The Insight story, still available on the Web, never makes clear that the rumors aren't true. An editorial in Insight recently defended the article: “The focus in our story in January 2007 was Hillary’s campaign strategy, not Obama. We were right in our January report about Hillary’s activities, the facts continue to prove us right that Hillary will do all she can to sabotage Obama, and we will ultimately be fully vindicated. Once again, the liberal media will have egg on its face.”

CNN, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune investigated the facts behind the e-mail's madrassa claim, sending reporters to Indonesia to interview former teachers and students. (“Madrassa” is an Arabic word meaning "school,” but Americans generally understand the word to mean a school where anti-Western Islamic ideology is taught.) These investigations found a public school where students wore Western clothing and prayer was a small part of the curriculum. The Chicago Tribune reported the school was “so progressive that teachers wore miniskirts and all students were encouraged to celebrate Christmas.”

Another allegation that appears to have been tacked on to the madrassa e-mail at a later date is the notion that Obama took the oath of office using a Koran. That’s false. Obama became a Christian as an adult, after working as a community organizer with African-American churches in Chicago, a process he recounts in his memoir Dreams from My Father. He is currently a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. When he took the oath of office for the Senate in January 2005, he used his own personal Bible, according to the Obama campaign and press reports from the time.

Because the chain e-mail is clearly intended to defame Obama (asking "Would you want this man leading our country?") and because it gets so many salient points wrong, we award it our Pants on Fire ruling.

Mike

I've heard his speeches, and seen him in debates, and seen him on the news not respecting America. I appreciate your concern that I don't know him, but I know him as much as any of the other candidates. I'm not in his inner circle, and unless you are, then you don't really know any more about him than anybody else...So the whole point of my little post was saying that of all the possibles, why him? Just from the apparent little I do know, I can't stand the guy. I have never seen that e-mail you referenced several times. I guess someone out there is swift-boating him, or trying to....who would do that? Clintons?, KKK?, Republicans?

Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT:
History probably won't show that the Iraq War was a war about money or about oil. Things like that don't look good in a Middle School textbook.

And its simply not true. The Iraq War was a part of the war on terror. Without that backdrop we'd have never invaded. However, even without 9/11 the War on Terror was itself inevitable. Had we remained uninvolved the conflict between Isreal and Syria/Lebanon would have erupted into another war in which Saddam would have been involved and we'd have been drawn in as a result (unless Isreal kicked their collective asses...again).

Middle School textbooks will tell the dates, names of the players, and mention WMDs and the War on Terror as the cause. Middle School textbooks will keep it simple.

Quote:You'll probably never find a Middle School textbook that says the Civil War was fought to preserve the power and dominion of the Union over the States. That's not sexy or romantic.

In Middle School I learned that the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery and states rights...plus some names and dates.

It was not until college that I took a class on the economic history of the United States and learned that the cause was almost entirely based upon economic choices made by the North and South fifty years prior.

Quote:But fighting Slavery? That's a good fight. Sign me up.

Ok...first stop, Iran where we can liberate the women (and get some oil...er...persian rugs). Then North Korea, Cuba, Vermont, Hollywood, my bosses office, and, if there's time, France (cause who doesn't want to conquer France just for the hell of it).

Quote:As an aside, when the enemy has a terrific military leader, you can't ignore the multiple brilliant victories he wins. It makes more sense to talk up his capabilities and prowess. Since you eventually beat this person, it only makes you seem even cooler. I mean, if the history texts said, "General Lee was a pansy" then you'd be hard pressed to explain his truckload of victories during the first half of the war.

Seems that Lee is a special case. Nobody talked nice about Johnson, Bedford Forrest, or most other southern leaders. Lee kicked ass on armies twice his size, armies that had certain advantages...like shoes...guns...food and he never lost his respect for the enemy or his love for his country and in the end that sentiment was returned. Even Unconditional Surrender Grant granted conditions out of respect to General Lee.

And we've all seen how bad insurgency can be. Imagine if Lee had dispersed his army into the hills to continue the fight rather then becoming a voice of moderation and reconcilliation in the post war years.

All FIREFLY graphics and photos on this page are copyright 2002-2012 Mutant Enemy, Inc., Universal Pictures, and 20th Century Fox.
All other graphics and texts are copyright of the contributors to this website.
This website IS NOT affiliated with the Official Firefly Site, Mutant Enemy, Inc., or 20th Century Fox.